Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   Palin resigns (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/149138-palin-resigns.html)

Derwood 07-07-2009 01:14 PM
I'm loving the portrayal of Palin as "master political strategist." keep it coming

dc_dux 07-07-2009 01:16 PM
ace...I dont think she is dumb, but her depth of knowledge of national policy issues was (is) appalling and blaming the media only made her look weaker.

I wish her well and would applaud her for milking it for every penny she can get with a book deal, speeches, a potential TV gig...but thats where her future lies.

This latest fiasco is the last nail in the coffin...she is a "not ready for prime-time player" in national politics. Doesnt have the policy intellect or the heart.

dippin 07-07-2009 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2665037)
So, how do you explain the dislike from GOP elites? How do you explain the recent Vanity Fair reports from McCain people?
Internal party politics have very little to do with policy positions.

Quote:
Palin has a grass-roots following that has almost nothing to do with the "company line".
Or any other policy position, for that matter, which is exactly his point.

aceventura3 07-07-2009 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2665062)
George W. Bush was a multi-millionaire who made his political career by portraying himself as "just like us."
He is.

---------- Post added at 09:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2665064)
I'm loving the portrayal of Palin as "master political strategist." keep it coming
I am saying she is under-estimated. If she get a guy like Rove on her team the way Bush did, she will be President.

Derwood 07-07-2009 01:40 PM
a Rovian smear campaign is about the only way she's going to get elected

aceventura3 07-07-2009 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2665067)
ace...I dont think she is dumb, but her depth of knowledge of national policy issues was (is) appalling and blaming the media only made her look weaker.
Hence, a local, small time politician, pauses/regroups, reinvents herself for the national stage and continues the fight. You assume she is a quitter, I don't. We all know what her weaknesses are, I think it is wise for her to take her game to the next level after some focused preparation and work. Seems to me that elitist's don't think she has what it takes, we will see. And, I totally understood McCain making her his VP choice given his strengths and weaknesses. No one politician comes without weakness or flaws. In the end it is a question of character or how does a person respond to their weaknesses.

---------- Post added at 09:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:46 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2665087)
a Rovian smear campaign is about the only way she's going to get elected
Or, an Obama smear campaign? Check with Hilery and Bill. Bill Clinton, a racist??? Wow!

Derwood 07-07-2009 01:49 PM
I'd love to hear the list of policies where Palin differs from the GOP

dc_dux 07-07-2009 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2665092)
Hence, a local, small time politician, pauses/regroups, reinvents herself for the national stage and continues the fight.
She could have done that while still completing her current term and keeping her commitment to the citizens of Alaska (and then choosing not to run for reelection in 2010)....as all others from similar political backgrounds or experience levels have done.

Derwood 07-07-2009 01:52 PM
Quote:
As to whether another pursuit for national office, as when she joined Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the race for the White House less than a year ago, would result in the same political blood sport, Palin said there was a difference between the White House and what she had experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House, she said, the "department of law" would protect her from baseless ethical allegations.

"I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out," she said.

There is no "Department of Law" at the White House.
lol

Willravel 07-07-2009 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2665097)
I'd love to hear the list of policies where Palin differs from the GOP
I think she may be to the right of the GOP on a few things, like privatizing rape kits.

FuglyStick 07-07-2009 02:02 PM
I'm not one to chastise another because they subscribe to an opinion different than my own, but come on.

Palin is PAINFULLY stupid. Worse yet, she is proud of her ignorance. Republicans, you can do much, much better at finding someone to represent your ideals and policy; if you can't, the Republican party really is dead.

aceventura3 07-07-2009 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2665097)
I'd love to hear the list of policies where Palin differs from the GOP
Why do you think elitist Republicans dislike Palin?

---------- Post added at 10:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:08 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2665098)
She could have done that while still completing her current term and keeping her commitment to the citizens of Alaska (and then choosing not to run for reelection in 2010)....as all others from similar political backgrounds or experience levels have done.
She ain't like all others. Maybe you will never understand. The fact that she is different is what is appealing.

---------- Post added at 10:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood (Post 2665099)
lol
There ain't no references to "czars" in the Constitution either. Why isn't that funny to you?

---------- Post added at 10:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2665107)
I think she may be to the right of the GOP on a few things, like privatizing rape kits.
If it is covered by private insurance, why shouldn't a local government collect for the cost? Seems to me to be a fair question for government officials to discuss and agree upon, one way or the other.

---------- Post added at 10:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by FuglyStick (Post 2665109)
I'm not one to chastise another because they subscribe to an opinion different than my own, but come on.

Palin is PAINFULLY stupid. Worse yet, she is proud of her ignorance. Republicans, you can do much, much better at finding someone to represent your ideals and policy; if you can't, the Republican party really is dead.
As a registered Republican, thanks for your concern.

mixedmedia 07-07-2009 02:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2665037)
She is even giving Micheal Jackson competition in the media the last few days.
Yeah. So why isn't this thread about that?

For someone who wants to escape the persistent glare of media attention she sure picked a funny way of doing it.

And, is this really all about that David Letterman thing? Or has there been a constant barrage of unflattering news items about her since the election? I haven't seen them. I do look at internet news and I can't remember seeing any articles about her. Of course, chances are if I did see them I wouldn't take notice, but really, where was this constant barrage of unflattering coverage coming from?

Also, there ain't no way in hell you're going to convince me that it is any worse than it is (or has been) for A) the current president or B) the Clintons.

And, Ace, do you actually know Sarah Palin? All this mysterious 'just you wait and see,' business sounds like you know something we don't know.

Derwood 07-07-2009 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2665111)
Why do you think elitist Republicans dislike Palin?
Answering a question with a question, eh? YOU are the one who says that Republicans don't like her, so the onus is on YOU to explain why.

Willravel 07-07-2009 02:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2665111)
If it is covered by private insurance, why shouldn't a local government collect for the cost? Seems to me to be a fair question for government officials to discuss and agree upon, one way or the other.
She was just raped, she doesn't need to be handed a bill. There should be no debate over that.

shakran 07-07-2009 02:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2665111)
Why do you think elitist Republicans dislike Palin?
Because they falsely blame her for ruining McCain's campaign. I personally blame the idiots that picked her, but that's just me.

Quote:
She ain't like all others. Maybe you will never understand. The fact that she is different is what is appealing.
"Different is good," is bullshit. Different can be good. And it can be bad. Child molesters are "different," as are serial killers. You're right that Palin is different, but that's because most people who achieve political office at the level she just ran away from, are more informed about how government works. They do not think the Vice President can force the Senate to pass laws, they do not think being able to barely see a foreign country from an island off the coast of their state qualifies them as a foreign relations expert, and they do not think that the White House's fictitious "department of law" can unilaterally squelch investigations of a sitting president.

Palin is different in that she is vapidly stupid, shockingly ignorant, and further different in the fact that she glorifies and revels in that ignorant stupidity.

That's not the kind of difference the country needs. We already had that brand of different from 2000 to 2008. Why do you want to have it again, only to an even greater degree?

Wyodiver33 07-07-2009 04:53 PM
Some funny, and true, political cartoons. Yes, Palin is in there.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...a-From-Wasilla

Willravel 07-07-2009 05:18 PM
State of Alaska Department of Law

hotandheavy 07-07-2009 06:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran (Post 2664842)
Would you elaborate on which ideals those are?



How is that helped by the governor of Alaska stepping down? In other words, what has one to do with the other?
#1. While I feel you will discount my reply, I'll go ahead anyways.

By her very existence she puts the lie to numerous liberal mantras, such as the notion that women cannot advance without affirmative action; Republicans are sexist; anyone who loves Alaska's beauty can't support drilling in ANWR; and women need government programs to manage marriage, children and work simultaneously.

Sarah Palin doesn't just talk respect for unborn human life. She's lived it. She chose not to abort her son after learning that he had Down's syndrome.

She hasn't fallen for the myth of man made global climate change, or whatever they're calling it today.

She supports Isreal.

Like Ace, I don't feel abandoned by Sarah. I think good things are in her future.

#2. Sarah is not a Washington insider. Neither am I and I feel like NO ONE there is working for me. I want them ALL gone. I think like Sarah, so I know she would be working for me.

In the video that Ave provided, Sarah explained very well, even twice to the thick skulled Andrea Mitchell, why she is stepping down-to prevent a lame duck sitting governor. She knew she couldn't get any work done for the people of Alaska.

dippin 07-07-2009 07:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotandheavy (Post 2665274)
#1. While I feel you will discount my reply, I'll go ahead anyways.

By her very existence she puts the lie to numerous liberal mantras, such as the notion that women cannot advance without affirmative action; Republicans are sexist; anyone who loves Alaska's beauty can't support drilling in ANWR; and women need government programs to manage marriage, children and work simultaneously.

Sarah Palin doesn't just talk respect for unborn human life. She's lived it. She chose not to abort her son after learning that he had Down's syndrome.

She hasn't fallen for the myth of man made global climate change, or whatever they're calling it today.

She supports Isreal.

Like Ace, I don't feel abandoned by Sarah. I think good things are in her future.

#2. Sarah is not a Washington insider. Neither am I and I feel like NO ONE there is working for me. I want them ALL gone. I think like Sarah, so I know she would be working for me.

In the video that Ave provided, Sarah explained very well, even twice to the thick skulled Andrea Mitchell, why she is stepping down-to prevent a lame duck sitting governor. She knew she couldn't get any work done for the people of Alaska.
Can you cite anyone or any speech where "liberals" claim any of the things you've accused them of?

Tully Mars 07-07-2009 07:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotandheavy (Post 2665274)

In the video that Ave provided, Sarah explained very well, even twice to the thick skulled Andrea Mitchell, why she is stepping down-to prevent a lame duck sitting governor. She knew she couldn't get any work done for the people of Alaska.

Hey maybe all elected officials should quit a year and half before they finish the term they ran for and were elected to fulfill.

Or we could just elect them for shorter terms.

Willravel 07-07-2009 07:25 PM
Choosing Governor Palin was the ultimate slap to the face of women. Instead of choosing one of the many brilliant women, women capable of true leadership and even headed critical thinking skills, they chose someone utterly incapable. Even after months of training, she couldn't answer questions like "What is the Bush Doctrine?" and "What magazines do you read?" Those are fluff questions.

Have you ever read the transcript of Susan B. Anthony's speech after getting caught voting before women were allowed? It's breathtaking. There are Susan B. Anthonys all around us, just waiting for the right opportunity to take a leadership position in society. There are women in the top positions in government and business around the world that could speak and more importantly think with that same brilliant clarity. Every time Sarah Palin winked at the camera during the debate, it was spitting in the face of great women.

Frosstbyte 07-07-2009 09:57 PM
Well said, will.

mixedmedia 07-08-2009 02:22 AM
I'll second that. Thanks, Will.

shakran 07-08-2009 04:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotandheavy (Post 2665274)
#1. While I feel you will discount my reply, I'll go ahead anyways.

By her very existence she puts the lie to numerous liberal mantras, such as the notion that women cannot advance without affirmative action
I actually agree with this notion. I'm not a fan of affirmative action.

Quote:
Republicans are sexist
Hey, there are gay republicans too. That doesn't mean the party as a whole is supportive of gays either.

Quote:
anyone who loves Alaska's beauty can't support drilling in ANWR
I don't think any liberal has claimed that. Cite your source, please - and Rush Limbaugh claiming we said it doesn't count.

Quote:
and women need government programs to manage marriage, children and work simultaneously
I don't think you can look at any politician, especially one with the income-generating capability she apparently has, as proof that ordinary women do not need any help.

Speaking of which, I do wonder where she got the money for her 3000+ square foot house with the sea plane in the front lake. . .


Quote:
Sarah Palin doesn't just talk respect for unborn human life. She's lived it. She chose not to abort her son after learning that he had Down's syndrome.
There are lots of people, liberals included, who do not choose to have an abortion. The neocon mantra that liberals are baby killers is as undeserved as it is idiotic.


Quote:
She hasn't fallen for the myth of man made global climate change, or whatever they're calling it today.
I wonder if you've actually looked into the scientific research regarding this issue, or if you're just listening to what right-leaning talking heads are telling you. I assume that as an intelligent, independent woman it is the former, and am therefore curious why you have decided to side with the less-than-1% of scientists (most of whom are on the payroll of oil companies and other major polluters, and some of whom are barely scientists if at all by training) instead of the vast majority of them who are saying that the climate is in fact changing.


Quote:
She supports Isreal.
And that qualifies her to be president?

Quote:
#2. Sarah is not a Washington insider. Neither am I and I feel like NO ONE there is working for me. I want them ALL gone. I think like Sarah, so I know she would be working for me.
At what point does one become a Washington insider? Upon election to office? If so, it would be illogical to elect anyone, as they are doomed to become an insider as soon as they get there. If not, then I would point out that Franken can hardly be an insider as he's been a Senator for less than 24 hours. Should you not be throwing your support behind that maverick? ;)



Quote:
In the video that Ave provided, Sarah explained very well, even twice to the thick skulled Andrea Mitchell, why she is stepping down-to prevent a lame duck sitting governor.
No, she didn't. The idea of stepping down once one decides not to run for another term means that no one should ever be in any sort of elected office because eventually they'll have to leave, and therefore will be a lame duck. The period between the decision not to run again and the next election is actually the best time to get stuff done, because you no longer have to worry about getting re-elected.

ratbastid 07-08-2009 04:58 AM
Okay, I'd like to bring this thread back up out of the rabbit hole to discuss Electoral-vote.com's analysis:

Electoral-vote.com: Election news (scroll down a bit)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electoral-vote.com
Palin Revisited

There has been a ton written about Sarah Palin's resignation in the past few days. The dominant view (Charlie Cook being an exception) is that she is scheming to run in 2012 but her unorthodox move will backfire against her. With a bit of reflection, there is perhaps another story line. The main thing to consider is that she really disliked being governor. She refused to live in the governor's mansion in Juneau and instead lived at home in Wasilla, a suburb of Anchorage 600 miles from the capital. She had endless fights with the Republican-controlled state legislature and has been the subject of over 15 ethics probes and has spent over $500,000 of her own money (which she doesn't have) on lawyers defending herself. The bottom line is that she really hated the job so once she had decided not to run for relection in 2010, why stay at a job that is no fun at all?

Palin is also an impulsive person. She makes decisions on the spur of the moment without carefully weighing the pros and cons. Unlike Mitt Romney, who probably has an Excel spreadsheet with a row for every day from now until the Iowa caucuses in January 2012 listing precisely which Iowa villages, hamlets, and farms he is planning to visit that day and what he is going to say there, Palin is probably now focused on making a lot of money in the next 18 months so she can at least afford running in 2012, if she decides to do so. After all, in 2011 she probably won't have an income and it is hard to run for President and charge for your campaign speeches. She needs to make a few million this year and next even to seriously consider running. An upcoming book and paid speeches will fill the bill nicely.

Her resignation speech was rambling to the point of being incoherent. It is very unlikely she has a master plan at all. She just didn't like the situation she was in and wanted to get out of it and who knows what comes next.

Many pundits have said she wants to carry the conservative banner and that she is a female Ronald Reagan. I don't think that is true. She is a female George Wallace--an angry representative of the lower middle class who feels put upon by elites. She went to six third-tier colleges before managing to graduate and clearly resents people like President Obama who sailed through Columbia and Harvard Law School and surrounded himself with experts from the Ivy League and M.I.T. While she didn't single out pointy-headed intellectuals as the cause of the nation's problems, when listening to her, one feels she easily could and would probably like to except she is smart enough to realize that doing so would cause them to heap even more scorn on her--and she has incredibly thin skin for a politician, constantly blaming the media and hostile (often Republican) politicians for her problems. Her motto is: "It's not my fault."

George W. Bush was no intellectual himself by a long shot, but one didn't feel any rage in him. After all, he went to Phillips Academy, Yale, and Harvard, and was the son of a President, grandson of a senator, and brother of another governor, not exactly prime white trash material. Nobody would mistake him for a downtrodden and scorned worker barely hanging on and feeling the powerful didn't give a hoot about him. And he knew very well that had he been named Smith instead of Bush he would never have been governor of Texas, let alone President. For all her faults, Palin pulled herself up by her own bootstraps and was elected governor of a state by fighting her own battles. Nobody gave her anything. This makes her a fighter to her admirers, who don't give a damn about her IQ, her diplomas, or even her lack of knowledge of government. There is a lot of class resentment here and graduates of fancy universities can't understand why anybody would fall for what they see as a complete nincompoop. She represents Joe Sixpack a lot better than Joe the Plumber, who simply caught a lucky break when John McCain acquired him as his new best friend.

Whether she runs for President in 2012 probably depends on how well she likes her new life--once she figures out what it is. There are plenty of politicians who could have run for President and didn't, for example, Gov. Mario Cuomo (D-NY) in 1992 and Al Gore in 2004 and 2008. Palin may decide she likes being a speaker and class heroine and making millions of dollars a year and would prefer doing that until her 15 minutes of fame are up. She probably doesn't know what she is going to do in 2012 yet. God will tell her when he's ready to do so.

A Gallup poll taken July 6 shows that 70% of Americans say that their view Palin is unchanged by her resignation, with 43% willing to vote for her and 54% not willing to vote for her in 2012. She is popular with Republicans and unpopular with Democrats (surprise) but independents, who hold the key to any election, want her to leave the national stage 55% to 34%. Fixing that without alienating her base will be hard.
I think there's a lot to discuss here. I hadn't really considered how hard her job has been in Alaska, and how much she might just want out. I agree with this view that it doesn't seem she has a lot of "what's next" planned out--when asked she says something about making a difference in Alaska and the US, and she doesn't need to be Governor to do that.

I also think the contrast drawn between Palin and GWB in this piece is quite keen. While both ran on "everyman" roots, Palin's tone of anger (or... fiestyness?) is really the big differentiator between the two.

Derwood 07-08-2009 05:23 AM
If she thought governing Alaska was hard, she wouldn't last 6 hours in the White House

aceventura3 07-08-2009 06:58 AM
Here is my concluding thought for this thread.

Assuming there is general agreement that since October 2008 Palin has done everything wrong and her resignation is a figurative death blow to her political future (I don't agree, but let's just assume that) - she still has polling number that suggest that 43% of all voters would consider voting for her in 2012 according to Gallup and 73% of Republicans. If she puts any kind of a team together that can help her do a few things "right", she will be a force that can not be ignored and she will be a force to be feared by Democrats and some entrenched Republicans. Some very powerful people have strong motives to take her down, she has been fighting alone with the grass roots support of millions of average Americans. The irony is that the more she is attacked the more she is supported. She has played her opening hand. At the end of the day, she is either going to win big or go back to the simple life in Alaska. Those who like politicians with no convictions will never understand the appeal of a person like Palin.

Derwood 07-08-2009 07:22 AM
I don't dispute those numbers, except to say that the poll question was probably "Would you vote for Sarah Palin, yes or no?", which is misleading since those being polled have no idea what other GOP candidates they'll have to choose from. What if Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) runs as well? Would they pick Palin over Romney or Huckabee? Etc., etc. ,etc.

dippin 07-08-2009 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2665446)
Here is my concluding thought for this thread.

Assuming there is general agreement that since October 2008 Palin has done everything wrong and her resignation is a figurative death blow to her political future (I don't agree, but let's just assume that) - she still has polling number that suggest that 43% of all voters would consider voting for her in 2012 according to Gallup and 73% of Republicans. If she puts any kind of a team together that can help her do a few things "right", she will be a force that can not be ignored and she will be a force to be feared by Democrats and some entrenched Republicans. Some very powerful people have strong motives to take her down, she has been fighting alone with the grass roots support of millions of average Americans. The irony is that the more she is attacked the more she is supported. She has played her opening hand. At the end of the day, she is either going to win big or go back to the simple life in Alaska. Those who like politicians with no convictions will never understand the appeal of a person like Palin.
Polling over 2 years away from primaries and 3 from the election is essentially meaningless.

As far as her "bothering" powerful people, that has more to do with internal struggles of the republican party than any of her actual policy positions.

dc_dux 07-08-2009 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2665446)
...she still has polling number that suggest that 43% of all voters would consider voting for her in 2012 according to Gallup and 73% of Republicans.
Even two years out, its fuzzy math.

You cant win an election with only 3 out of 4 of your own party (much of it soft support) and barely 4 out of 10 of independents (even softer support).....particularly with the highest negatives at the same time.

Rekna 07-08-2009 08:13 AM
If she runs for president and win's two terms will she quit 6 months into her second term because she doesn't want to be a lame duck?

shakran 07-08-2009 08:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna (Post 2665477)
If she runs for president and win's two terms will she quit 6 months into her second term because she doesn't want to be a lame duck?
Only if the White House Department of Law tells her to.

Frosstbyte 07-08-2009 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2665446)
Those who like politicians with no convictions will never understand the appeal of a person like Palin.
I would LOVE nothing more than to have a legitimate US politician who has strong personal convictions and stands by them. I just want that person to be informed, intelligent and capable of critically thinking about those convictions. Palin, despite everything else, has achieved quite a lot and I wouldn't detract that from her, but her convictions, as far as I can tell, are informed either by what the party has told her she should think or by her immediate emotional responses to the world. Neither of those are the kinds of convictions I want leading the country.

Willravel 07-08-2009 11:26 AM
BTW, how are you appreciating Alaska's beauty when you're shooting at it with a high powered rifle from a helicopter?

FuglyStick 07-08-2009 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2665568)
BTW, how are you appreciating Alaska's beauty when you're shooting at it with a high powered rifle from a helicopter?
Disingenuous, Will, and not pertinent. There is more than enough to criticize about Palin's politics and leadership qualifications without introducing a straw man.

Willravel 07-08-2009 12:50 PM
The inconsistencies in her environmental policies were brought up when talking about how appreciating Alaska can go hand in hand with destroying ANWR. The hunting from a helicopter is a great illustration of her real relationship with the environment.

ratbastid 07-08-2009 01:40 PM
I still can't fathom how having convictions trumps the capacity for rational thought and the ability to consider a matter from multiple perspectives.

Americans like their politics fed to them in small, bite-sized, black-and-white-colored portions, I guess. Convictions make a nice sound bite.

Rekna 07-08-2009 01:47 PM
The world had convictions that the earth was flat. They killed people who disagreed.
The world had convictions that the earth was the center of the universe. They killed people who disagreed.

Convictions can be wrong. Convictions are not always a good thing.

ratbastid 07-08-2009 01:54 PM
Well, shit, GWB had convictions regarding Iraq. Those turned out real great. Biggest fucking mistake in the history of our country. Convictions trumped reason, trumped logic, trumped evidence to the contrary.

I actually want to elect the person with the LEAST convictions. I don't want my president or any other person representing or governing me to be "religious" about ANY issue. That way I KNOW they'd research, study, listen, and learn before taking action. If the Bush administration had done ANY listening to ANY of the people who were telling them not to go into Iraq, our country's situation would be vastly better than it is today.

mixedmedia 07-08-2009 02:26 PM
And since when doesn't practically everyone on the fucking planet have convictions? It's what those convictions are that matters. It's ludicrous to support someone based on the fact that they 'have convictions.' I've no doubt that the majority of people who go into DC politics have (or did have) real, compelling convictions at some point in their political careers. That's what makes smart people who could make more money elsewhere go into politics in the first place.

I am as disillusioned with the static, corrupt quality that much of our national politics consists of as anyone, but to purport that Sarah Palin is more remarkable than anyone who went before her and is therefore better equipped to withstand the forces of what is truly an immovable political machine is so naive it gives me a sugar rush. I can tell you one thing this country needs to do right quick is grow the fuck up and stop mythologizing these people. Mr. Smith was fiction. There is no such beast.

---------- Post added at 06:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

Sorry about that...this thread is making me testy. Everybody carry on.

scout 07-08-2009 02:36 PM
With all the problems facing this country I can't believe everyone here is still talking about this.

dc_dux 07-08-2009 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia (Post 2665665)
....this thread is making me testy. Everybody carry on.
Its ok. Palin got testing too.

Particularly when criticized by the media for repeated baseless shots at Obama (palling round with terrorists and racists, etc), which she has every right to take, during the campaign, then complaining that such criticism of her by the media might lead to some dreaded infringement on First Amendment rights:
"I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”
WTF....just doesnt have a clue.

---------- Post added at 06:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:50 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by scout (Post 2665693)
With all the problems facing this country I can't believe everyone here is still talking about this.
Politics is not just about policy. Those who aspire to high political office are also worthy of discussion.

Or perhaps its just amusing to watch the decline and fall of one such person and attempts by others to defend the indefensible. I admit....cheap thrills .

mixedmedia 07-08-2009 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2665704)
Its ok. Palin got testing too.

Particularly when criticized by the media for repeated baseless shots at Obama (palling round with terrorists and racists, etc), which she has every right to take, during the campaign, then complaining that such criticism of her by the media might lead to some dreaded infringement on First Amendment rights:
"I don’t know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media.”
WTF....just doesnt have a clue.
You won't find me boo-hooing over her treatment by the media. I haven't noticed any 'spotlight' politicians catching a break in the 'liberal media' regardless of affiliation. Like I said before, I fail to see where she's been treated any worse than any other controversial political figure. As far as I can tell, she just can't take it. And that's fine, I probably couldn't either. She's average, so what? Next!

dc_dux 07-08-2009 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia (Post 2665711)
You won't find me boo-hooing over her treatment by the media. I haven't noticed any 'spotlight' politicians catching a break in the 'liberal media' regardless of affiliation. Like I said before, I fail to see where she's been treated any worse than any other controversial political figure. As far as I can tell, she just can't take it. And that's fine, I probably couldn't either. She's average, so what? Next!
The issue I have is her attempt to make it some infringement of her First Amendment rights.

That is such an ignorant misinterpretation of the most basic of Constitutional rights, its appalling.

mixedmedia 07-08-2009 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2665712)
The issue I have is her attempt to make it some infringement of her First Amendment rights.

That is such an ignorant misinterpretation of the most basic of Constitutional rights, its appalling.
Honestly, I'm not aware enough to know about that. I've never even seen the woman speak, if you can believe that. (read lots of transcripts, though) Is she seriously making the claim that her rights have been violated?

Wyodiver33 07-08-2009 03:13 PM
The main reason that I am not fond of this thread is because I really want to keep polarizing politics out of the TFP. I don't want fights. Let other areas of the web fight. I just don't want that here. Nobody will win.

Want my take? Palin and the Republicans are insane. O'Reilly won't be happy until something really bad happens to the US. Rush should be tried for treason. I had to deal with 8 years of Cheney-Bush. I hate the GOP. For you to have the f'ing nerve to blame everything on Obama makes me sick.

See? That's why we should really keep the TFP politics-free. I like you all, until you show your Republican side. Let's keep the THP as an oasis.

(BTW, I served in the USAF from 1989 to 1999, most of my time was in Special Ops, so just don't try, ok? Cool.)

dc_dux 07-08-2009 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia (Post 2665720)
Honestly, I'm not aware enough to know about that. I've never even seen the woman speak, if you can believe that. (read lots of transcripts, though) Is she seriously making the claim that her rights have been violated?
The Young Turks explains it pretty well:

mixedmedia 07-08-2009 03:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux (Post 2665726)
The Young Turks explains it pretty well:
YouTube - Sarah Palin Doesn't Understand First Amendment
uh, wow, ok.

'real bullies always have a victim mentality'

oh man, that gave me shivers, it's so true.

Thanks.

shakran 07-08-2009 06:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyodiver33 (Post 2665725)
The main reason that I am not fond of this thread is because I really want to keep polarizing politics out of the TFP. I don't want fights. Let other areas of the web fight. I just don't want that here. Nobody will win.

Personally, I think the heart of politics is debate, and political debate is by definition polarizing. Either you think women should have the right to an abortion or you don't. Either you think gays should be able to marry or you don't. And if you think it, you're gonna be at polar opposites to the guy who doesn't.

There are lots of forums (forae? Fora?) under the TFP umbrella that are not polarized. If people don't want to see political debate, they aren't required to come in here. For those of us that do, our polarization, as you put it, doesn't seem to leak out to the rest of the board very much.

This thread is a rather classic example. There are people out there who actually think Palin is intelligent, and those of us who realize that she is a moron do not understand why the other side thinks what they do. There's no way to get around that, beyond passing some blanket rule of "do not debate anything in politics," at which point we may as well close the forum.

Wyodiver33 07-08-2009 07:37 PM
Please, I am telling you, let the Dem/GOP debate get out of hand and we will have problems. I Don't want that to happen here on the TFP. Set me off and I will go nuts about my beliefs. I just think that the discussion would boil down to hate. And I don't want that. It would serve no purpose.

Here's an example of how I feel: GW Bush was never in charge. GW was Cheney's bitch. Read the book called "Fiasco." Powell quit because he was used. Rumsfelt would never have been happy until he had a third world war. It goes on and on. Rush? O'Reilly? Should be sent off to Antarctica.

See? There really is no place on the TFP for this. I want us to all remain friends.


Palin is an idiot. Republicans are idiots. Pro-lifers are idiots. Anti-stemcell people are idiots. People who think the Earth is only 6000 years old are idiots. People who doubt global warming are idiots. Sarah Palin is a friggin' moron. I kind of begged you guys to not get me involved here. She's dumb as a box of rocks and well on her way to getting her GW Bush Corruption Merit Badge. She lives in the last really beautiful state but sees all critters as a pain in the ass.

Whatever. I hope she does run in 2012, will be a slam dunk.

Willravel 07-08-2009 07:57 PM
HEY! That's not nice! Apologize:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YMirgSzJl7...s320/rocks.JPG

Rekna 07-08-2009 08:35 PM
This is a politics board. People will have strong opinions here. This has been going on forever and the point of this board is to keep it out of the other ones. At the end of the day i'd still have a beer with anyone here and i'm hoping the feeling is mutual. (Though i'm sure after a few beers the politics discussion would get really really good...)

shakran 07-08-2009 08:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyodiver33 (Post 2665842)
Please, I am telling you, let the Dem/GOP debate get out of hand and we will have problems. I Don't want that to happen here on the TFP. Set me off and I will go nuts about my beliefs. I just think that the discussion would boil down to hate. And I don't want that. It would serve no purpose.

Here's an example of how I feel: GW Bush was never in charge. GW was Cheney's bitch. Read the book called "Fiasco." Powell quit because he was used. Rumsfelt would never have been happy until he had a third world war. It goes on and on. Rush? O'Reilly? Should be sent off to Antarctica.

See? There really is no place on the TFP for this. I want us to all remain friends.
Alright, then stop saying the things you say there is no place for here, while couching them in protests against them. Politics has been around for many years, and no one's died yet. This particular threadjack is now over.

dippin 07-08-2009 09:20 PM
to bring it back on topic:
Key Reason Palin Gave For Quitting May Be False | The Plum Line

apparently, the expressed reason is actually false. Not that I am surprised, but it seems like a lot of people are willing to throw her under the bus.

My guess right now as to why she quit has nothing to do with media, legal bills, or looming scandal: ever since she became a national figure she has dedicated more and more time to her national profile. Things like her declining stimulus money, for example, was a decision that seemed to pit her national ambitions and the staff dedicated to her national profile against the local staff and their priorities. I wouldn't be surprised if it just got to a point where her staff and supporters simply came up to her and said "either quit or we resign and hammer you publicly."

shakran 07-08-2009 09:27 PM
I don't see anything overly shocking in that dippin. You see such claims all over the place. "It cost the city $300,000 to have its engineers design this road." . . . So the city wouldn't have paid the engineer's salaries if it hadn't been for the road? Obviously not.

I think this blog is trying a bit too hard. Palin could easily have meant "I don't want the lawyers to be paid to defend my office, but to do other work for the state."

That said, I do think the reasons she gave are highly suspect.

ratbastid 07-09-2009 04:38 AM
82-year-old blogger Helen Philpot sums up my feelings exactly:
Quote:
Originally Posted by brilliant older american
My God that woman is an idiot. I have said this before, but I feel the need to say it again. Her problems did not come because the media was against her. Her problems come because every time you stick a microphone in front of her mouth a whole lot of stupid falls out.
I love this woman. LOVE. I want her to be my grandma.
SARAH PALIN CALLED A FAMILY MEETING AND THE RABBIT LIVED… Margaret and Helen

shakran 07-09-2009 05:09 AM
Damn, she doesn't pull any punches there, does she.

Made a good point about Palin wanting less government "unless there's a vagina involved."

hotandheavy 07-09-2009 06:07 AM
I'm so tired of trying to explain my support of SP. Not here, but IRL. I "get" her. Her haters will dismiss me as being as stupid as she supposedly is. I pretty much strongly dislike all politicians-Dems, Repubes.

The truth is, liberals are furious they won't have Sarah Palin to kick around anymore with ridiculous ethics violations – at least not with her hands tied behind her back by her public office.

I have held the opinion for a long time that dyed in the wool liberal women really want to see conservative women fail. Because it's not about all women, it's only about promoting the feminist agenda. I believe that all people are equal, I don't need special consideration to get a job, buy a home, start a business, etc. Compassion has no place in politics.

Politics is an incredibly polarizing blood sport right now. I am perfectly comfortable with my belief system, and reading liberals opinions is only entertaining to me. You won't change my mind, I don't expect to change yours. But I do pay attention to others political views as they almost always tie into every other aspect of life. Entitlement issues, personal responsibility, freedom, equality.

aceventura3 07-09-2009 08:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia (Post 2665665)
And since when doesn't practically everyone on the fucking planet have convictions? It's what those convictions are that matters. It's ludicrous to support someone based on the fact that they 'have convictions.' I've no doubt that the majority of people who go into DC politics have (or did have) real, compelling convictions at some point in their political careers. That's what makes smart people who could make more money elsewhere go into politics in the first place.
What are Obama's convictions? What will he stand for without compromise? What will he give maximum sacrifice for? What would he risk in exchange for his political power?

I can give answers to those questions regarding Palin, I could not for Obama.

shakran 07-09-2009 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666043)
What are Obama's convictions? What will he stand for without compromise? What will he give maximum sacrifice for? What would he risk in exchange for his political power?

I can give answers to those questions regarding Palin, I could not for Obama.
Really? What? Certainly not ethics. Not honesty (Obama's a terrorist!). Not perseverance, or she'd not have run away from her job that the citizens sent her to do. I'm interested to know what you think those convictions are. Not what Limbaugh told you to think, but what You, think.

Rekna 07-09-2009 08:51 AM
Obama's convictions seem to be honesty, integrity, and family to me. What are Sarah's?

Willravel 07-09-2009 09:03 AM
This seems to be going in an odd direction. Why are we talking about the president's convictions in a thread about the ex-governor of Alaska? Shouldn't the question of her convictions be more to the point?

roachboy 07-09-2009 09:05 AM
ace---read the prince and try again.
you can do it.
catch up with the 16th century.
jesus.

all this disengenous "naivté" now that the conservatism lay in little pieces on the ground...

aceventura3 07-09-2009 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna (Post 2666052)
Obama's convictions seem to be honesty, integrity, and family to me. What are Sarah's?
Just as one example. Family values:

Quote:
About 90 percent of pregnant women who are given a Down syndrome diagnosis have chosen to have an abortion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html?_r=1

Palin as an ambitious person with political and career aspiration choose to give birth to Trig.

When, Palin's oldest daughter gave birth to a child outside of marriage. She gave her daughter unconditional love and support. She did not force a marriage. She did not try to hide it. She shouldered the criticism and calls of hypocrisy.

One of the reasons Palin is stepping down as governor is clearly for her family. The building legal bills, the non-stop jokes and lies about her children all warrant a time-out. she has an opportunity to earn money, pay legal bills, and provide financial security for her family.

I admire Palin for the above. I admire her taking the risks and the criticisms for what she believes in, in support of her family. I would do the same.

---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2666059)
This seems to be going in an odd direction. Why are we talking about the president's convictions in a thread about the ex-governor of Alaska? Shouldn't the question of her convictions be more to the point?
I was done here, but then I read several posts seeming to ask for clarification of the issue of convictions. I go with the flow.

---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:40 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2666060)
ace---read the prince and try again.
you can do it.
catch up with the 16th century.
jesus.

all this disengenous "naivté" now that the conservatism lay in little pieces on the ground...
I have no clue as to what this means.

Willravel 07-09-2009 10:07 AM
It's a Machiavelli reference.

It's confusing that you admire Sarah Palin because her daughter got pregnant and... she didn't force the kid to marry her daughter? It's not the 1950s. Most parents wouldn't force the boy to marry their daughter. Because she loves her daughter? Mothers are biologically hardwired to love their children, most mammals show affection and protection for their young. These seem less like convictions and more like things anyone and everyone would do. Do you think Obama wouldn't do these things? If one of his daughters became pregnant do you think he would suddenly stop loving her or would force her to get married? Of course not. So, based on that, you should admire Obama. But you seem not to based on some vague accusations of dishonesty.

He's not kept all his campaign promises, but I'll bet you a million bucks that had Palin been elected there's no way she would have kept a lot of hers (based on precedent and her personal history). It's perfectly clear that she was caught red handed lying about the Gravina Island Bridge. She lied about Walt Monegan. She lied about rejecting federal stimulus money. She lied about trade missions to Russia. She lied about the Branchflower Report. She lied about improvising after her prompter had failed during her Canton, Ohio speech. There's a long list somewhere, I'm sure I could find it with a google search. So, if Obama is unprincipled or has a lack of convictions for not keeping some of his campaign promises, by that same measure Sarah Palin should also be found to have a lack of convictions.

dippin 07-09-2009 10:27 AM
What exactly are her convictions, how do they differ from general republican positions, and how are they something that Obama lacks?

So she didnt pressure her daughter to marry. Do you think Obama would?

As for the rest, being pro-life and other republican staples have their democratic counter parts. So I don't see how her being pro-life is a demonstration of her convictions, but Obama's pro choice stance is no conviction at all.

ratbastid 07-09-2009 10:49 AM
ace, is it that her convictions (although now that we've used that word so much, I'm no longer sure quite what it means) are in line with yours? You agree with her convictions? Or simply that she has some?

Let's say I have very strong convictions that you're 100% opposed to. Would you vote for me anyway?

loquitur 07-09-2009 10:53 AM
Here is a view from Alaska that I found illuminating:

Quote:
I didn't vote for her in the primary, or in the general election, because I thought she wasn't qualified. I sometimes think that the word "qualified" for higher public office really means 'not a part of the upper class political structure'. It makes sense in part. How could anyone who doesn't hobnob with the elite power structure have the knowledge and wherewithal to govern, which is in a large part hobnobing with the elite power structure?

I and a huge majority of Alaskans would say she has done a good job on the issues she has taken on. Alaska lives and dies by the oil patch. She squeezed quite a few sheckels out of the oil men, and reinvigorated a gas pipline that had been on hold status for a decade. I'm sure that was made easier by high gas and oil prices. She rooted out the old guard Republicans who were pretty corrupt, but her Republican predicessor Murkowski was almost universally disliked which probably made that job easier. The state is fiscally sound (believe it or not that wasn't the case recently), but with $100 oil for a lot of her term I'm not sure that speaks to Palin's abilities. She has cut next year's state budget by 7%, but the budget was bloated beyond belief. I would have been more convinced if she had used the scissors her first year.

The point? I'm not a huge Palin fan, but she hasn't made any large missteps in her times as mayor or governor. Both the claims of how wonderful or how terrible she is seem way off the mark of what I see from up here. People like Jon obviously don't even take the time to research the facts. People like Simon seem to be projecting the ideal of what they see to be good governance on her. I'd say the truth lays somewhere in between.

This is how I see Palin:

1. She is smart. I watched her dismantle the opposition in the primary and general. I felt genuinely sorry for them. She was using a notebook at the televised debates, but the facts were at her command, and she used them like a razor. If I hear someone say she is stupid or crazy, there is not much reason to listen anymore, since they don't know what they are talking about. Could she make the proper decisions in high level negotiations? I doubt it, but I figure it would only take her a couple of months to reach Obama's level of expertise (who is doing a reasonably good job of it IMO).

2. She is ambitious. I'm far from an insider but it is common knowledge she is pretty ruthless when someone is standing in the way of her agenda. She doesn't seem to be power mad, but she has stepped on quite a few toes on the way up.

3. This is completely heresay (in fact anything I'm saying here has at least 3 or more filters. I've never met the woman, or know anyone who has had regular dealings with her) but I've heard from people who should know that she has an extrodinary amount of common sense. If she thinks it will work it most generally does. Sometimes against the consenus common sense.

4. She talks funny. Sorry Palin lovers - she does. I'm not sure how she can ever communicate effectively to the mass until she does better with her syntax. I'm guessing that this is what brings out the bile in a lot of people. I mean you could break a finger trying to diagram one of her sentences! But if you listen (you don't have to interpret, just listen) what she is saying is not that hard to understand. Whether you agree with it or not. And to me at least she does sound a bit whiny. She is getting a raw deal from the media, but that's life.

5. She is personally socially conservative, but has made no effort to make social conservatism a part of the state's agenda. The internet rumor mill on this point has been astoundingly off base.

6. She is an outsider. The plus is that power corrupts, and 10 term senators are walking proof. The minus is that the POTUS is not an island. She has no connections. Washington is hardball, and she would be on the field by herself.

I have no insight to why she quit other than what she said, and agree with others who say that this is an insurmountable obstacle to her ever running for president. But I can tell you that I am interested in what she will do in the future, and wish her well. Frankly I hope she litters the ground with a whole lot of bodies along the way. It's time to clean up the political genepool.
I found this here, if anyone wants to go back to the source.

Willravel 07-09-2009 11:25 AM
I totally buy that she's ambitious, but even watching the video of the debates for Alaska Governor it seems she's not even marginally capable in a debate. She just happened to be up against someone similarly incapable of debate that also happened to be uninteresting. She manages, with the "aww shucks" demeanor, to catch your attention. She seemed more confident, to be sure, but she still spoke in broad generalities and didn't have much of a handle on the facts, instead resting on her likability.

I'm afraid Dennis, the author of the above, is quite wrong when he comes to the conclusion that Sarah Palin is "smart", at least when you compare her to other people in the public eye generally though of as smart. She's not VP Cheney, she's not General Powell, and she's not Newt Gingrich... she's much more like President George W. Bush in intellect.

FuglyStick 07-09-2009 12:04 PM
Yeah, everybody saw the Couric interview. Is there anyone who is seriously going to claim that she sounded like an intelligent, well informed candidate? Because your definition of "intelligent" and "well informed" are completely at odds with any rational person's definition.

Frosstbyte 07-09-2009 12:42 PM
The interesting thing about palin supporters as ace might chime in to saysos that they don care that she sounded like that and further that us caring about that only reinforces that we don't understand her appeal as a candidate. it baffles me to be sure but there it is. This whole nonsensical discussion about her convictions shows that. Palin has supporters who think her belief in god or family or small town charm or whatever else trump anything she lacks in intellectual rigor or political knowhow or education.

Which, frankly, makes no sense to me.

aceventura3 07-09-2009 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2666096)
It's a Machiavelli reference.

It's confusing that you admire Sarah Palin because her daughter got pregnant and...
Your logic escapes me here. I admire Palin because she handled her daughters pregnancy in a manner consistent with her core beliefs. Understanding Palin's core beliefs and her conviction to them illustrates a predictable response. This is a good quality in a person to me, one I deeply respect.


Quote:
she didn't force the kid to marry her daughter? It's not the 1950s.
Do you think people are not pressured and forced into marriage? You don't think a parent can persuade a minor your young adult to take an action that the minor or young adult has not thought through?

I don't understand your point here. To me it is as clear as can be how a teenage pregnancy can turn into a disaster without the unconditional love and support of parents.

Quote:
Most parents wouldn't force the boy to marry their daughter.
Many simply don't give a shit.

Quote:
Because she loves her daughter? Mothers are biologically hardwired to love their children, most mammals show affection and protection for their young.
I am getting the feeling you are in a theoretical "la-la" land. I know people who were teenage parents, parents of teenage mothers, even my sister had a baby before graduating high school. I have personally seen how different people handle this and the affects of their actions from various points of view. the Palin family, no matter how you cut it, gave their daughter unconditional love and support. I respect that, and always will - no matter what she does with her political career. Palin is a hero - so are other parents who walk the talk when it comes to unconditional love and support of their children.

---------- Post added at 09:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2666105)
What exactly are her convictions, how do they differ from general republican positions, and how are they something that Obama lacks?
First, with me understand who you are interacting with. I am a person who would have voted for Hilery Clinton in the general election against McCain because I don't think McCain is true to his stated convictions. Even though I disagree with Clinton on most policy issues, I know where she is coming from - with her there would be no surprises. People like McCain/Obama and a few others are simply selling "snake oil" in a quest for power. I don't have a problem with people seeking power, I just have a problem with them being dishonest about it or the approach to getting power.

I believe Obama started his political career by choosing a church based on his political ambition for starters. and it goes on and on from there.

---------- Post added at 09:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by FuglyStick (Post 2666170)
Yeah, everybody saw the Couric interview. Is there anyone who is seriously going to claim that she sounded like an intelligent, well informed candidate? Because your definition of "intelligent" and "well informed" are completely at odds with any rational person's definition.
Have you ever had a bad day?

When you first started in a job or in your career did you ever f... something up? Did you recover? Did you become one of the best in that job or career after the f... up? I don't expect perfection from politicians, I expect honesty.

dippin 07-09-2009 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666229)
First, with me understand who you are interacting with. I am a person who would have voted for Hilery Clinton in the general election against McCain because I don't think McCain is true to his stated convictions. Even though I disagree with Clinton on most policy issues, I know where she is coming from - with her there would be no surprises. People like McCain/Obama and a few others are simply selling "snake oil" in a quest for power. I don't have a problem with people seeking power, I just have a problem with them being dishonest about it or the approach to getting power.

I believe Obama started his political career by choosing a church based on his political ambition for starters. and it goes on and on from there.
You didn't answer the question. He clearly has certain convictions that are opposites of Palin (pro-life/pro-choice, etc.)

And how in the world can you say that with her there would be no surprises? What is this thread about, after all?

As for her stated convictions that go beyond the basic republican talking points, she has been caught in as many, if not more, lies than Obama and McCain.

---------- Post added at 01:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:28 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666229)
Your logic escapes me here. I admire Palin because she handled her daughters pregnancy in a manner consistent with her core beliefs. Understanding Palin's core beliefs and her conviction to them illustrates a predictable response. This is a good quality in a person to me, one I deeply respect.
So what are her core beliefs? Milking it for all its worth?

ratbastid 07-09-2009 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666229)
First, with me understand who you are interacting with. I am a person who would have voted for Hilery Clinton in the general election against McCain because I don't think McCain is true to his stated convictions. Even though I disagree with Clinton on most policy issues, I know where she is coming from - with her there would be no surprises.
So you're saying YOU have no convictions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura
Have you ever had a bad day?

When you first started in a job or in your career did you ever f... something up? Did you recover? Did you become one of the best in that job or career after the f... up? I don't expect perfection from politicians, I expect honesty.
I'm a computer programmer. You better believe I have bad days and fuck things up. Difference is, when I do that, I don't blame the liberal gotcha computer.

Shifting the blame is one of your core values, I take it? Because she hasn't actually owned up to ANY of the dirt that's been flung at her. And while I admit that there is a pretty fair amount of noise on that channel, there is some stuff, I think, that's pretty legitimate. But rather than respond to it head-on, she blames the messenger, blames the media, blames, blames, blames. THIS is something other than politics-as-usual??

aceventura3 07-09-2009 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frosstbyte (Post 2666194)
Which, frankly, makes no sense to me.
Take the concept of empathy seriously for a few moments. And perhaps re-read some of the things I have written if you really want to better understand. Then add the following:

I am a "protector" by nature. When someone is being unfairly attacked (my perception), my nature is to come to their defense.

I tend to support the "underdog" in a fight.

I love when ordinary people do extra-ordinary things.

I like some flaws or weathering in people. I tend to distrust those who are too polished.

I love individualists and doers. I have a strong bias against academic types and theoreticians.

If a person scores well on those points, I am going to like them no matter what. Then add a few other things: Core values, conviction, principles and I can become a raving fan.

You may note that "intellect" is not referenced above and I did not overlook it. Intellect is way down on my list of what is important. Most people I know who belong to American Mensa are not happier, more successful, more honest, etc., than those who are not.

Derwood 07-09-2009 01:39 PM
Just want to throw out that nobody here is anti-Palin because she's a woman. I'm seeing too many hints at that here to not say something...

aceventura3 07-09-2009 01:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin (Post 2666246)
And how in the world can you say that with her there would be no surprises? What is this thread about, after all?
You are surprised by her decision to step down, I am not. I totally understand her decision, I thought I made that clear.

Cynthetiq 07-09-2009 01:43 PM
Wow, 5 pages of absolutely nothing worth anything especially when this thread gets necro'd 2 years from now. More important subjects get less attention, it's amazing!

Willravel 07-09-2009 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666229)
Your logic escapes me here. I admire Palin because she handled her daughters pregnancy in a manner consistent with her core beliefs. Understanding Palin's core beliefs and her conviction to them illustrates a predictable response. This is a good quality in a person to me, one I deeply respect.
No, had the situation actually followed Sarah Palin's core beliefs, her daughter learning abstinence only would have prevented the pregnancy. After something she firmly believed in was (for the millionth time) demonstrated to be ineffective, she was already in the public eye. According to what Bristol Palin said in subsequent interviews, Sarah Palin allowed Bristol to make the decision to keep the baby. That's a violation of the pro-life stance that Sarah Palin champions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666229)
Do you think people are not pressured and forced into marriage? You don't think a parent can persuade a minor your young adult to take an action that the minor or young adult has not thought through?

I don't understand your point here. To me it is as clear as can be how a teenage pregnancy can turn into a disaster without the unconditional love and support of parents.
Some people are pressured into marriage, but it's not common anymore. As more time passes and society continues to progress, it will likely continue to become less common.

Do you think President Obama would support and love his daughter regardless of what she decided to do if she became pregnant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666229)
Many simply don't give a shit.
Many only means a few in this case. Most parents love their children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666229)
I am getting the feeling you are in a theoretical "la-la" land.
It's called "sociology" and "biology".
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666229)
the Palin family, no matter how you cut it, gave their daughter unconditional love and support. I respect that, and always will - no matter what she does with her political career. Palin is a hero - so are other parents who walk the talk when it comes to unconditional love and support of their children.
If Sarah Palin is a hero for not hating her daughter, you've set the bar for being a hero unbearably low.

aceventura3 07-09-2009 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid (Post 2666248)
So you're saying YOU have no convictions.
If you say so.

Quote:
I'm a computer programmer. You better believe I have bad days and fuck things up. Difference is, when I do that, I don't blame the liberal gotcha computer.
Are you saying the complaints she has made about the attacks are without any basis? There is no truth in what see has said about the media? Again, the media treated Clinton inappropriately too, and the Clinton's had some clout with the media. Palin, did not even have total support from the people McCain hired to help her.

Quote:
Shifting the blame is one of your core values, I take it?
You are wrong. And it is clear that you are not willing to see the otherside of this issue.

Quote:
Because she hasn't actually owned up to ANY of the dirt that's been flung at her. And while I admit that there is a pretty fair amount of noise on that channel, there is some stuff, I think, that's pretty legitimate. But rather than respond to it head-on, she blames the messenger, blames the media, blames, blames, blames. THIS is something other than politics-as-usual??
To be clear. There is a greater the 50% probability that Palin will never run for President. She knows that. There is almost 100% chance that she will never be governor again. She has shown no interest in Congress or the Senate. She is not going to be a Federal Judge or candidate for the Supreme Court. She is unlikely to be picked as a cabinet member on some future administration. There is a good probability that her political career is over and that she will go back to living her life in Alaska. I think she would be fine with that. I will be fine with that too, and still be one of her biggest fans.

mixedmedia 07-09-2009 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666043)
What are Obama's convictions? What will he stand for without compromise? What will he give maximum sacrifice for? What would he risk in exchange for his political power?

I can give answers to those questions regarding Palin, I could not for Obama.
You mistake me for someone who thinks that Obama is unique. I can tell you some of the convictions he voiced during the election that spoke to me.

My point is, you may be able to account for her convictions now. You cannot speak for her once she is in office. The nature of democratic politics is compromise - there is no escaping it for a politician. And often they are very great, painful compromises for the people who support them. George W. Bush compromised (just ask the religious right). Barack Obama compromises. Sarah Palin will compromise...in the unlikely event that she is ever elected president. Where the naivete comes in is this candy-coated sentimentality that believes she will be any different than the ones who came before her.

If you want to find people with real, uncompromisable convictions you need to look outside of politics - perhaps in the fields of political activism or philanthropy. At this point, why anyone isn't totally disillusioned with the ability of American politics to promote and safeguard their ideals (unless 'they' are GE or Lockheed Martin) I simply do not understand.

---------- Post added at 05:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:55 PM ----------

wow, i didn't realize there was a whole other page...

Cynthetiq 07-09-2009 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq (Post 2666263)
Wow, 5 pages of absolutely nothing worth anything especially when this thread gets necro'd 2 years from now. More important subjects get less attention, it's amazing!
sorry, I'm tired. I really should qualify this better.

I'm amazed this is still discussion worthy. She's not been elected, she's doesn't seem like she's got a shot in hell at the presidency and if she did, it will be a very big long shot, come 2012 election season. She's stepped down from the elected office she's held.

Seems to me like there's no real reason to talk about her any longer. She has no reason to exist in the media any longer.

aceventura3 07-09-2009 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2666266)
No, had the situation actually followed Sarah Palin's core beliefs, her daughter learning abstinence only would have prevented the pregnancy.
Come on Will. Let's not be silly. Palin's daughter is a unique individual on this earth, and she makes her own choices.

Quote:
Some people are pressured into marriage, but it's not common anymore.
I wish someone else would tell you how your argument is coming across. I know a guy getting married and he doesn't even remember proposing.

Quote:
Do you think President Obama would support and love his daughter regardless of what she decided to do if she became pregnant?
I remember him making a comment about an unwanted pregnancy being the biggest mistake his daughter could make in her life. Imagine how she would approach him if she actually got pregnant after hearing that- she wouldn't!!!!

Imagine Obama's grandchild watching a You tube video were his grand-father suggests that the grandchild ruined his mother's life.

Empathy?!?

---------- Post added at 10:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia (Post 2666275)
My point is, you may be able to account for her convictions now. You cannot speak for her once she is in office.
I disagree. A person's convictions takes them to who they really are, under pressure or stress is when you can asses someone's true convictions. I have seen Palin under pressure and in stressful situations, I have read accounts of the same. Certainly, I could be wrong and can mis-read a person - but when I think I am right about a person, I would literally bet my life on it.

I got married the first time when I was 22. I did not really know her and she did not know me, even though we dated for about 3 years. We were different. We found out the hard way. My current wife and I got married when I was 35, our core values and convictions are the same. We can disagree on many things, but she knows my core and I know hers. There are no surprises and will be no surprises between us. I am not talking about romantic surprises, I am talking about how she or I would respond in situations of stress and pressure. When I say a person has "no convictions", it can be misleading to state it that way. Some people hide them or are deceitful about their convictions - that is the foundation of problems.

Willravel 07-09-2009 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666282)
Come on Will. Let's not be silly. Palin's daughter is a unique individual on this earth, and she makes her own choices.
So you're admitting that the cause of abstinence only, championed by Bush, Palin, and a plethora of other conservatives, is wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666282)
I wish someone else would tell you how your argument is coming across. I know a guy getting married and he doesn't even remember proposing.
As people like to remind me, the "I know a guy" arguments really don't mean much. Do you have any statistics?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666282)
I remember him making a comment about an unwanted pregnancy being the biggest mistake his daughter could make in her life. Imagine how she would approach him if she actually got pregnant after hearing that- she wouldn't!!!!
Here's what he said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by President Obama
Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.
I think you may have missed the overall message.

---------- Post added at 03:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:21 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq (Post 2666280)
sorry, I'm tired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq (Post 2666280)
I'm amazed this is still discussion worthy. She's not been elected, she's doesn't seem like she's got a shot in hell at the presidency and if she did, it will be a very big long shot, come 2012 election season. She's stepped down from the elected office she's held.
There's a good possibility that she could end up hosting a conservative political talk show or even a Fox News program, based on what we know about her. I'm not convinced that this is the last we'll see of Sarah Palin.

aceventura3 07-09-2009 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2666298)
So you're admitting that the cause of abstinence only, championed by Bush, Palin, and a plethora of other conservatives, is wrong?
It is not realistic.

I support sex education. However, I think the morality of sex should be taught by parents. The biology of sex should be taught in the schools, age appropriate. I do not support public funding for condoms/birth control/abortions/etc.

Quote:
As people like to remind me, the "I know a guy" arguments really don't mean much. Do you have any statistics?
No. Don't even know how they would measure that, that is why I would hope some others would jump in to give you some different view points. Perhaps, in your circle people don't get pressured into marriage.

---------- Post added at 10:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2666298)
I think you may have missed the overall message.
I don't think babies are punishment.

Willravel 07-09-2009 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666314)
It is not realistic.

I support sex education.
Fantastic. You're aware that as Governor Sarah Palin backed abstinence-only education during her 2006 gubernatorial race, yes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666314)
No. Don't even know how they would measure that, that is why I would hope some others would jump in to give you some different view points. Perhaps, in your circle people don't get pressured into marriage.
I can't find any statistics on it either. We'll probably just have to say "some people are pressured to marry, and others aren't". Your position, that Sarah Palin not pressuring her daughter to get married (which, honestly, we can't verify because we're not privy to their private conversations) representing something admirable, may or may not be true.

---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666314)
I don't think babies are punishment.
They're not just punishment, but the fact that most pro-life people are hesitant to suggest a woman carry a rapist's baby to term communicates their position is more about a woman being responsible and less about the fetus being alive. Taking that into consideration, pro-life laws would be about punishing women for getting pregnant.

mixedmedia 07-09-2009 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666282)
I disagree. A person's convictions takes them to who they really are, under pressure or stress is when you can asses someone's true convictions. I have seen Palin under pressure and in stressful situations, I have read accounts of the same. Certainly, I could be wrong and can mis-read a person - but when I think I am right about a person, I would literally bet my life on it.

I got married the first time when I was 22. I did not really know her and she did not know me, even though we dated for about 3 years. We were different. We found out the hard way. My current wife and I got married when I was 35, our core values and convictions are the same. We can disagree on many things, but she knows my core and I know hers. There are no surprises and will be no surprises between us. I am not talking about romantic surprises, I am talking about how she or I would respond in situations of stress and pressure. When I say a person has "no convictions", it can be misleading to state it that way. Some people hide them or are deceitful about their convictions - that is the foundation of problems.
So you're saying that you know and trust Sarah Palin just as much as you do your wife? I don't see how that's possible unless you are in a position to know her that well.

Plus, I wouldn't be so sure that you would find no surprises in your wife if her obligations became as estranged and convoluted as those one finds when they become the president of an entire country.

shakran 07-09-2009 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666269)
Are you saying the complaints she has made about the attacks are without any basis?
Dunno if Rat is, but I am. How exactly is the media supposed to treat someone who, over and over, clearly demonstrates her shocking lack of knowledge about the governmental system to which she aspired to be 2nd from the top?

Quote:
There is no truth in what see has said about the media?
no, that darn librul media isn't making crap up about her. Hell even if we were of a mind to, which we aren't, we wouldn't have the chance. She keeps doing stupid shit faster than we could invent more stupid shit for her to have done.

Quote:
Again, the media treated Clinton inappropriately too, and the Clinton's had some clout with the media.
The media was inappropriate with regards to Clinton not because they went after him, but because they went after him for the wrong thing. Who the hell cares that he ejaculated on Monica's dress when his real failing is that bin Laden attacked the WTC under his watch and he didn't do jack about it? That's what they should have been hounding him on. Instead he got away with sleeping on the job because the media was more concerned with whom he was sleeping.

Quote:
Palin, did not even have total support from the people McCain hired to help her.
That, should maybe tell you something.

Wyodiver33 07-09-2009 05:57 PM
Come on folks.


I did mean it when I said to stop the threadjacking.
-shakran

Tully Mars 07-09-2009 05:58 PM
She's been pulling a Palin so long she now has her own entry in the Urban Dictionary-

Link here

dippin 07-09-2009 06:14 PM
how can she complain about the media so much when the person behind her nomination is a member of that media (Kristol), she has the unwavering support of the most watched cable news network, the biggest media mogul in the world (Rupert) throws dinners in her honor, and her daughter appears in every magazine and tv show she wants being lobbed softballs?

ratbastid 07-10-2009 04:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666269)
Are you saying the complaints she has made about the attacks are without any basis? There is no truth in what see has said about the media?
Look, let's just take one example that has been held up as emblematic of the whole thing: the Couric interview. There were LOADS of softball questions in there--questions designed to explore her as a person, give her an opportunity to introduce herself to America, let them see the kind of leader she'd likely be. I think she came INTO that interview unprepared and adversarial.

"What magazines and periodicals do you read?" is a big old mushball of a question. Anybody who's not had their head entirely up their ass can hear that it's meant to give the interviewee an opportunity to yammer some, open up to the interviewer, present themselves however they want. BIG open-ended question.

What came back was pure defensiveness, and deer-in-headlights. "Oh, you know, I read all sorts of things. Whatever's lying around." And it's like.... C'mon, dumbass. She's trying to HELP you, and you keep HURTING yourself.

So the question is, did Couric "gotcha" Palin, or did Palin "gotcha" herself?

Now: Charlie Gibson testing her knowledge of the Bush Doctrine... That was a set-up. I think Gibson knew exactly what was likely to happen there. Was it unfair? I don't think so. You don't get to be Vice President without knowing about the biggest shift in military doctrine in the history of our country. Was it politically motivated? I like to think it wasn't--I like to think that if Obama had fielded such a woefully unprepared VP candidate, he or she would have been tested the same way. What you might call (and Palin did call) "liberal gotcha journalism", I call actual journalism.

Does that mean all the stuff that's been thrown at her--particularly since November--has been fair? No. There has been a bit of a pigpile on her since losing the election. But even so, she's got this "the media is unfair to me" trope (which you hardly EVER saw Hillary play) that is her ultimate get out of jail free card.

aceventura3 07-10-2009 07:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2666321)
I think there is confusion based on the way people ask the question. Schools should not be responsible for teaching the morality of sex. Schools should not be in a position were they advocate/endorse/teach/promote, sexual activity to children or anyone under the legal age of consent. Until a child is "legal" the official position of the schools should be neutral on the subject or they should error on the side of advocating/endorsing/teaching/promoting children to abstain from sex. We know teenagers are going to have sex and we know some parents are not going to educate their children. In my view when the question is asked in school, I think the first response should be - you (teenagers) should abstain from sex, however these are the scientifically proven method to reduce the risk of... - you should discuss this with your parents, doctor, guardian, pastor/rabbi/priest/monk/etc. And, here are the legal implications of you (teenagers) having sex, i.e. - statutory rape, rape, sexual harassment, child support, etc.

Willravel 07-10-2009 07:41 AM
You think Gibson knew she didn't understand what "Bush Doctrine" meant? I was totally caught off guard when she started acting like a child in response. "Whatdaya mean, Charlie?" with that forced smile.

What really got me was when she basically lost her footing in reality in response to the question about the bailout:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Couric
Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries? Allow them to spend more, and put more money into the economy, instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah Palin
That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and getting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade -- we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation.
It was like she was giving the wrong answers to a half dozen questions that Katie Couric didn't ask. I could have probably forgiven her the fact she didn't really understand the bailout, a lot of elected officials don't seem to get it, but holy crap.

I really respect Katie Couric for not laughing, to be honest.

---------- Post added at 08:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 AM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666595)
I think there is confusion based on the way people ask the question. Schools should not be responsible for teaching the morality of sex. Schools should not be in a position were they advocate/endorse/teach/promote, sexual activity to children or anyone under the legal age of consent. Until a child is "legal" the official position of the schools should be neutral on the subject or they should [err] on the side of advocating/endorsing/teaching/promoting children to abstain from sex. We know teenagers are going to have sex and we know some parents are not going to educate their children. In my view when the question is asked in school, I think the first response should be - you (teenagers) should abstain from sex, however these are the scientifically proven method to reduce the risk of... - you should discuss this with your parents, doctor, guardian, pastor/rabbi/priest/monk/etc. And, here are the legal implications of you (teenagers) having sex, i.e. - statutory rape, rape, sexual harassment, child support, etc.
Sex education should only be factual, teaching that a child should be abstinent is teaching morality. There's a huge difference between, "Abstinence is an effective method of preventing the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies", and, "You should try to be abstinent". The former is informative, the latter is teaching the morality of sex, as you call it.

Sex ed when I was in school was 100% factual, and it worked just fine. I've never caught an STD, I've never had a legitimate pregnancy scare, and I'm confident I'll be clean until the day I die.

aceventura3 07-10-2009 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia (Post 2666360)
So you're saying that you know and trust Sarah Palin just as much as you do your wife?
Yes.

Quote:
I don't see how that's possible unless you are in a position to know her that well.
I don't do shades of trust. I either trust or I don't trust.

Quote:
Plus, I wouldn't be so sure that you would find no surprises in your wife if her obligations became as estranged and convoluted as those one finds when they become the president of an entire country.
I am not confused about what I think and what I believe. If I turn out to be wrong, which is always possible, I will deal with that. But, I don't know how people live with the level of uncertainty I think I am detecting in your comments.

To give an example using Obama and Palin - on the issue of an unplanned teen pregnancy.

Obama talks about empathy. But in a unplanned moment he says what he really believes - that an unplanned teen pregnancy is punishment. Imagine the child living under the fog of being considered punishment. I conclude Obama's talk about empathy is bullshit.

Palin does not talk about empathy. But in a unplanned moment she says what she really believes - that her daughters baby is a blessing - that her down syndrome baby is a blessing. Imagine the child living under the belief that they are a blessing. I conclude Palin's talk about family has real meaning.

I trust Palin on the subject of Family with 100% certainty. I am not saying that she would never make a flawed judgment on an issue that may come across her desk as a politician, but in my view there is no doubt that she would truly be empathetic to the baby and teenage mother involved. I trust my wife in the same way. Obama does not have my trust - I am not sure what his motivations would be. Perhaps you do, but I don't.

---------- Post added at 03:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2666598)
Sex education should only be factual, teaching that a child should be abstinent is teaching morality.
Is teaching a teenager not to drink and drive teaching morality? Or, is it teaching the law? Why do you think we have laws defining the age for sexual consent? Are you sure we are both talking about children K-12th grade?

Willravel 07-10-2009 08:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666605)
Is teaching a teenager not to drink and drive teaching morality? Or, is it teaching the law?
It's both. Is sex between two 16 year olds illegal? No, so the comparison doesn't work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 (Post 2666605)
Why do you think we have laws defining the age for sexual consent? Are you sure we are both talking about children K-12th grade?
We have ages of consent to prevent children from being taken advantage of by adults.

Rekna 07-10-2009 09:09 AM
Sex Ed should be purely factual:

Abstience is the only sure way to prevent the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancy.
Condom's prevent X% of unwanted pregnancies and X% of STDs.
Birth control prevents X% of unwanted pregnancies and 0% of STDs.

etc.

That is purely factual and does not tell the child to have sex or not have sex. Instead it educates them on their options letting their parents teach them the morality while equipping them to make educated decisions about their own sex life.

---------- Post added at 05:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 PM ----------

Now back to Palin's resignation:

It looks like it might be because she is for sale!

Levi Johnston: Palin's Resignation About Personal Finances - Political News - FOXNews.com

Quote:
ANCHORAGE, Alaska - The former fiance of Gov. Sarah Palin's 18-year-old daughter says he thinks he knows why the Alaska governor is resigning -- concerns over money.

Levi Johnston, 19, whose wedding to Bristol Palin was called off earlier this year, says he believes the governor is resigning over personal finances.

Johnston says he lived with the Palin family from early December to the second week in January. He claims he heard the governor several times say how nice it would be to take advantage of the lucrative deals that were being offered, including a reality show and a book.

"I think the big deal was the book. That was millions of dollars," said Johnston, who has had a strained relationship with the family but now says things have improved.

Palin has a book deal, but compensation details haven't been disclosed. The governor has said she is facing more than $500,000 in legal fees.

"It is interesting to learn Levi is working on a piece of fiction while honing his acting skills," Palin family spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

Johnston made his comments at a news conference Thursday at the office of his attorney, Rex Butler.

Johnston came forward, Butler said, because Alaskans want to know why Palin has decided to resign. She made the announcement last Friday.

Johnston also is pursuing his own book deal. He is working as a carpenter while also pursuing a movie deal.
I would hate to have a president who would sell out America. Money is a great conviction!

aceventura3 07-10-2009 09:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2666633)
It's both. Is sex between two 16 year olds illegal? No, so the comparison doesn't work.

We have ages of consent to prevent children from being taken advantage of by adults.
I am not clear on your position on this subject. What would you have the schools teach the 16 year-old about the decision to have sex or not? In my view the answer should be 16 year old children should abstain from having sex. I do not have a problem with 16 year old's being taught how to avoid pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease. Perhaps there is a small distinction between your view and mine. But, in my view the emphasis is on abstaining until reaching the age of legal consent.

In my view there are legal ages of consent because, as a society, we do not believe people under that age have the capacity to make an informed choice. I always thought the age of consent was as it states, regardless of the age of the partner, under the age of consent the child can not have "legal" sex with anyone. I think statutory rape applies to adults have sex with people under the age of consent. I guess in some states the age of consent is actually 16, but I think that is too young.

---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:45 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna (Post 2666643)
It looks like it might be because she is for sale!
Interesting choice of words. When Bill Clinton gets a million dollar book deal and makes $8 million a year on speaking engagements no one says he is "for sale"! when Michele Obama got a patronage job in Chicago at an inflated salary no one said she was for sale! When Al Gore make a movie full of hyperbole and invests in carbon off-sets, no one says he is "for sale"! So why would you use those words to describe Palin going out and making some money?

Rekna 07-10-2009 10:11 AM
none of them quit the job they were elected to and took an oath to perform. Palin sold out her state for money...

---------- Post added at 06:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ----------

Palin ran for the office of governor. In the process she pledged to serve the state and perform the duties of governor. When she was elected she took an oath saying she would do just that.

Now all the sudden an offer for more money comes along and she quits her duties she swore under oath to perform.

I'm sure some people are saying well hey politicians do that all the time. For example when Barak resigned his senate seat to become president. The different is the people that Barak swore to serve voted him into a different position. He had the will of the people asking him to take a higher office in order to better serve them.

In Palin's case the higher calling is greed.

You haven't really stated Palin's convictions that you are so fond of but here is a few of them that I can tell.

Palin has a conviction for dishonesty.
Palin has a conviction for greed.
Palin does not have a conviction for loyalty.

She looks like a great person to be in charge of a company but not a country.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:49 AM.
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360